Handedness and Symmetry

Game Talk The Drawing Board
1

Now that the encumbrance screen divides left and right sided limbs a thought occurs…

What if during character creation you chose your handedness? Either as left/right or taking ambidextrous as a perk. So long as an action only demands the use of one hand (wielding one handed weapons/tools etc.) it only considers the encumbrance of the hand you chose. Two handed weapons, most unarmed fighting styles and complex tasks/actions would still take into consideration the off hand when factoring how encumbered you are, naturally.

If you break or otherwise badly injure the arm you favor expect penalties when making do with your off-hand.

*As a footnote being ambidextrous not only negates any penalties associated with handedness but should apply small bonuses, like faster reloading and the like.

The second part of my suggestion deals with clothes. Finding an pair of shoes that fits you or coat that’s completely intact should be a tad more difficult after the world has ended, I should think. To this end I would love to see gloves, knee-pads, socks, boots, sleeves and all manner of assorted limb coverage spawn singularly, and as a left or right variant as appropriate. Moreso I would suggest an alteration to the current damage model where clothing is concerned.

Currently anything you wear will be completely destroyed if it sustains enough damage. Normally this functions well enough, but can lead to weirdness when say, growing talons makes your powered armor explode, or similar shennanigans with mutated anatomy pushes off your attire. And then an idea hit me. What if clothing had a central part that if destroyed eliminated the clothing just as it does now but any of the other areas could be torn away without incident. Here’s an example:

[ beekeeping suit

Volume: 14 Weight: 3.50 lbs/1.59 kg
Bash: -5 Cut: 0 To-hit bonus: -5
Moves per attack: 147
Damage per move: -0.03
Materials: Cotton
Flags: VARSIZE, OUTER
Can be cut into: 14 rags

Covers: LEGS, TORSO, ARMS
Coverage: 100%
Encumberment: 1
Protection: Bash: 4 Cut: 4
Acid: 4 Fire: 0 Elec: 8
Environmental protection:
Warmth: 25
Storage: 8

A white suit commonly worn by professional beekeepers with straps on your ankles and wrists to prevent bees from flying in. It’s not very tough fabric, but light and has plenty of storage thanks to a chest pocket.

Above is a snazzy bee keeping suit as it appears in game normally. I’d suggest the following change.

[ beekeeping suit

Volume: 14 Weight: 3.50 lbs/1.59 kg
Bash: -5 Cut: 0 To-hit bonus: -5
Moves per attack: 147
Damage per move: -0.03
Materials: Cotton
Flags: VARSIZE, OUTER
Can be cut into: 14 rags

Covers: LEFT LEG, RIGHT LEG, TORSO, LEFT ARM, RIGHT ARM
Coverage: 100%
Encumberment: 1
Protection: Bash: 4 Cut: 4
Acid: 4 Fire: 0 Elec: 8
Environmental protection:
Warmth: 25
Storage: 8

A white suit commonly worn by professional beekeepers with straps on your ankles and wrists to prevent bees from flying in. It’s not very tough fabric, but light and has plenty of storage thanks to a chest pocket.

Not much of a difference until we get to the meat of the suggestion. When viewed, either through the inventory directly or in the layering menu clothing would color code the various parts that make it from dark green (perfect health) all the way to bright red (nearly destroyed) Should a part of the clothing lose all its health (Either through combat and other hazards or the player taking a sharp object to it) it either:

A) Doesn’t cover/encumber/protect that part of your body anymore
or
B) That was a needed part of the garment (Like the TORSO coverage of a sweater) and without it the clothing is reduced to component materials.

At a glance they’d still show ripped/shredded etc to give players a quick frame of reference as to how badly the most damaged section of clothing is holding up.

Missing parts could be restored, but at a heftier cost than simply repairing them would have needed. Additionally this would mean that all suits could be cut down to just torso coverage, leather jackets could be Mad-maxed by removing a single sleeve and pants need just one leg. Why you ask?

Because if the game only spawns damaged clothing with any regularity survivors will look much more like scavengers, at least until they can craft their own clothing–and even then it gives them greater control over their encumbrance. Especially when/if handedness becomes a factor.

What’s more if a hail of bullets chews up your survivor armor it might only shred away the parts of it protecting your arms/legs–doing more damage to those parts while still contending with the coverage and armor of non-obliterated sections of the suit.

Thoughts?

2

I like this.

The part about one “central” part of your clothing makes sense, imho.

Also all in favour of non-exploding power armor due to sudden talon-growth.

The only issue is that things/UI should be kept as simply as possible, imho.

3

This would add quite a bit to the game, make finding clothing a little more fun than it is now :slight_smile:

One thing: If I find a shirt that has the left sleeve destroyed and one that has a left sleeve in good condition it should be possible to repair the bad sleeve using stuff from the good one (for a lower skill check). Finding spares for easy mending would be interesting…

4

The part about losing parts is kinda cool. I always craft sleeveless trenchcoats because regular ones rip apart too fast, which doesn’t make sense.
That way constant combat could rip your duster to trenchcoat and then to sleeveless trenchcoat instead of making it fall apart as soon as you step in acid.

The part about having left and right sleeves tracked separately sounds bad, though.

5

I’m not sure what I think about adding handling for a dominant hand, it might make preparing for combat slightly more interesting, but it sounds like it might take a lot of work to make it happen.
We’re planning on having singles of pairs spawn just as soon as we have a good way to merge and split them, we don’t want to force pairs to always appear as singles, and all the ideas we’ve had so far for handling it have been too cumbersome.
Tracking clothing damage per body part might be interesting, but I’m also concerned about that being a lot of work to add.

6

This right here. Pretty much all the backend work of handling split pairs is in already, it’s just waiting on trying to find a way to easily display said data to the player (and someone to code said display).

7

I’m happy to hear about splitting up pairs–honestly I can hardly find matching sock without zombies crashing through the door.

8

I think that ambidextrous handling should go such as:
Single-dominant would have higher preformance in one hand, lower in the other. +0 Str and +1 Dex for one hand, -0/-1 for the other. Default.
Limb dependant: +1 str + 2 dex for one arm, -1/-3 for the other. Costs 2 trait points.
Ambidextrous: neither arm is penalized or boosted. Costs 1 trait point.
The main reason why ambidexterity wouldn’t get an explicit dexterity bonus is because it would be better represented in the lack of off-handed penalties. Any otherwise impresive dexterity is better represented with flat dexterity stat adjustments in chargen.
Dodge and acrobatics should probably ignore handedness penalties and bonuses.

9

[quote=“iceball3, post:8, topic:8464”]I think that ambidextrous handling should go such as:
Single-dominant would have higher preformance in one hand, lower in the other. +0 Str and +1 Dex for one hand, -0/-1 for the other. Default.
Limb dependant: +1 str + 2 dex for one arm, -1/-3 for the other. Costs 2 trait points.
Ambidextrous: neither arm is penalized or boosted. Costs 1 trait point.
The main reason why ambidexterity wouldn’t get an explicit dexterity bonus is because it would be better represented in the lack of off-handed penalties. Any otherwise impresive dexterity is better represented with flat dexterity stat adjustments in chargen.
Dodge and acrobatics should probably ignore handedness penalties and bonuses.[/quote]

Problem is that the only way we specify hand-used is a presumption from any arm-breakage. As is, limbs are targeted/used to block more or less at random.

I’m not sure that penalizing someone even further when xe’s just lost use of an arm (so down to single-handed) is a good idea, though. Losing the buff (which the player likely has come to expect) and then taking a penalty may well be realistic but I’m thinking it’s likely to add more frustration than fun.

10

It will primarily mean that they wpuld prioritize protecting their dominant arm over their nondominant arm (presuming there is more means to do this besides biased healing).
The primary idea isnt so much making loss of a limb worse, as losing your non dominant arm isn’t quite as bad.
-2 dex for non dodging or acrobatics purpouses isn’t that bad for someone who just lost their entire arm (granted it will make things harder for the fresh survivor but most fresh survivors do not really survive a loss of limb, let alone manage to get one before dying).

11

[quote=“iceball3, post:10, topic:8464”]It will primarily mean that they wpuld prioritize protecting their dominant arm over their nondominant arm (presuming there is more means to do this besides biased healing).
The primary idea isnt so much making loss of a limb worse, as losing your non dominant arm isn’t quite as bad.
-2 dex for non dodging or acrobatics purpouses isn’t that bad for someone who just lost their entire arm (granted it will make things harder for the fresh survivor but most fresh survivors do not really survive a loss of limb, let alone manage to get one before dying).[/quote]

True, breaking an arm would likely be a death sentence in the cataclysm. I was basically arguing for some leniency to new folks.

If this includes changing the blocking code to prefer one’s off arm/leg for blocking, sure, that’d make sense and it might also justify that one-sided armor look that’s fashionable some places.

12

Yeah. This can also fit will with any plauisble ‘dual wield’ system if it gets implementation. Not specifically dual wielding items, but such purpouses as
Weapon and shield
Weapon and deflecting item, main gauche, etc
Weapon and other hand hauling some piece of junk uou dont want to cram in your backpack
Dual wielding shields for MAXIMUM DEFENSE
Etc
But that is for the future.

13

Twohanding a spear for less “your weapon gets stuck” and twohanding a zweihander for faster attacks. I can dig it.

14

[quote=“Muaddib, post:13, topic:8464”]Twohanding a spear for less “your weapon gets stuck” and twohanding a zweihander for faster attacks. I can dig it.[/quote]well, actually, i don’t think a zweihander is a feasible weapon one handed, unless your strength is huge. Sure zweihander has different stances for higher power or higher speed and closer range, but both are effectively two handed still.

15

You can swing a zweihander one-handedly, they’re not really that heavy. It’s just that they’re incredibly unwieldy one-handed.

16

Yes, you can swing a two-handed sword with one arm, but the much MUCH more important aspect of swordsmanship is being able to stop, redirect or guard with that sword mid-swing. The large handle on weapons like the zweihander is there so that you can manipulate the blade with the finesse and precision swordplay demands. Just as firing an assault rifle is -possible- with one hand you’d never want to actually use it that way if given the choice.

Which brings up the thought. Some weapons, like spears, should suffer only minor penalties for being used one handed (Slower attack/greater chance to miss/get stuck?) I’d imagine short of an awl pike or proper pole arm they’re very manageable weapons.

As for dual wielding I think it’s very important that having a weapon in each hand does not allow you to attack faster, as in any case where weapons are being used efficiently the opposite would in fact be true.

17

Yeah, dual wielding should be something like say, a fire axe and a dagger. The fire axe is for attacking, and the dagger is for counter attacking that zombie when it attacks you back.

No silly videogame twin katana/longswords/axes chopping limbs like you’re a MOBA character.